A snapshot of mothers' employment patterns

Women today are likely to work through nearly through their entire first pregnancy and return to work by the time their babies are six months old, according to a news release from the U.S. Census Bureau. You can read the full report here.

The study compared women from 1961 to 1965 with those in 2001 to 2003. The results confirm just about what you might think: Women with more education had more access to paid leave than women with less education; women who returned to work after their baby's birth likely returned to the same job; most women who quit their jobs did so while they were pregnant, but 8 percent did so 12 weeks after the birth.

But it also shows some interesting trends about motherhood. What disturbs me is women continue to have little choice, despite the advances of the women's movement.

Keep reading for more.

Here's what I mean. When my mom got married in 1962, she lost her job as a secretary at a large company, where she worked at the Manhattan office. She wanted the company to relocate her to a its office near Binghamton, where my dad worked.

But the company told her no. "You're Catholic; you'll be pregnant in no time," she was told. She could file a lawsuit today for that remark, but it those days people said what people just think today. She stayed out of the work force until I entered college.

Did she have a choice? Not really? A working mom wasn't much of an option in those days, especially among middle class women, as this study supports. Thirty-five percent of the 1961 to 1965 women in the study worked until a month before their first child's birth, and only 14 percent returned to work six months after their baby's birth. (That compares with two-thirds of women in 2001 to 2003 who worked through nearly all their first pregnancy, and 55 percent returned to work six months after giving birth.)

Now I'm not advocating for at-home moms or moms who work outside the homes. I think both can work, depending on family situation and neither turn out "better families." I think families should have the choice to pick what works best for their family.

And I don't think women have much more choice today. Sure, they can work. But many more today have to work than in the 1960s because few workers truly make a living wage. And the less money people make, they less choice they have in the matter.

This study found that more educated women were more likely to take paid leave after the birth of a child. Sixty percent of mothers with at least a bachelor's degree took some paid leave, compared with 22 percent who had less than a high school diploma. Education correlates to higher-paying jobs, which are more likely to offer benefits, such as paid leave. Lower-income women don't have that option, and they can't afford to take unpaid time.

Certainly many middle and upper middle-class women have choice -- on whether to work outside the home or not. But many women really don't. Consider a woman I met recently. She and her husband have a combined annual salary of $35,000, which makes them too wealthy to qualify for a child-care subsidy. So they pay close to $8,000 -- roughly 22 percent of their combined annual income -- a year for their one child to attend child care. But if mom quit her job, their total income would drop too low for them to survive. Is that really a choice?

So how much better off our women today, compared with 40 years ago? Not so much. Before, most women had to stay home once they had children; now most women have to work. When do women get a say in what's best for them?